| Message ID | 20241106215859.25446-7-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/i915/pps: Some PPS cleanups | expand |
On Wed, 06 Nov 2024, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > Replace all the hand rolled *10 stuff with something a bit > more descriptive (msecs_to_pps_units()). > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c | 23 ++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c > index 6946ba0004eb..5be2903c6aaf 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c > @@ -1462,6 +1462,12 @@ static bool pps_delays_valid(struct intel_pps_delays *delays) > delays->power_down || delays->power_cycle; > } > > +static int msecs_to_pps_units(int msecs) > +{ > + /* PPS uses 100us units */ > + return msecs * 10; > +} > + > static void pps_init_delays_bios(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, > struct intel_pps_delays *bios) > { > @@ -1494,7 +1500,7 @@ static void pps_init_delays_vbt(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, > * seems sufficient to avoid this problem. > */ > if (intel_has_quirk(display, QUIRK_INCREASE_T12_DELAY)) { > - vbt->power_cycle = max_t(u16, vbt->power_cycle, 1300 * 10); > + vbt->power_cycle = max_t(u16, vbt->power_cycle, msecs_to_pps_units(1300)); > drm_dbg_kms(display->drm, > "Increasing T12 panel delay as per the quirk to %d\n", > vbt->power_cycle); > @@ -1510,13 +1516,12 @@ static void pps_init_delays_spec(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, > > lockdep_assert_held(&display->pps.mutex); > > - /* Upper limits from eDP 1.3 spec. Note that we use the clunky units of > - * our hw here, which are all in 100usec. */ > - spec->power_up = (10 + 200) * 10; /* T1+T3 */ > - spec->backlight_on = 50 * 10; /* no limit for T8, use T7 instead */ > - spec->backlight_off = 50 * 10; /* no limit for T9, make it symmetric with T8 */ > - spec->power_down = 500 * 10; /* T10 */ > - spec->power_cycle = (10 + 500) * 10; /* T11+T12 */ > + /* Upper limits from eDP 1.3 spec */ > + spec->power_up = msecs_to_pps_units(10 + 200); /* T1+T3 */ > + spec->backlight_on = msecs_to_pps_units(50); /* no limit for T8, use T7 instead */ > + spec->backlight_off = msecs_to_pps_units(50); /* no limit for T9, make it symmetric with T8 */ > + spec->power_down = msecs_to_pps_units(500); /* T10 */ > + spec->power_cycle = msecs_to_pps_units(10 + 500); /* T11+T12 */ > > intel_pps_dump_state(intel_dp, "spec", spec); > } > @@ -1582,7 +1587,7 @@ static void pps_init_delays(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > * HW has only a 100msec granularity for power_cycle so round it up > * accordingly. > */ > - final->power_cycle = roundup(final->power_cycle, 100 * 10); > + final->power_cycle = roundup(final->power_cycle, msecs_to_pps_units(100)); > } > > static void pps_init_registers(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, bool force_disable_vdd)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c index 6946ba0004eb..5be2903c6aaf 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c @@ -1462,6 +1462,12 @@ static bool pps_delays_valid(struct intel_pps_delays *delays) delays->power_down || delays->power_cycle; } +static int msecs_to_pps_units(int msecs) +{ + /* PPS uses 100us units */ + return msecs * 10; +} + static void pps_init_delays_bios(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, struct intel_pps_delays *bios) { @@ -1494,7 +1500,7 @@ static void pps_init_delays_vbt(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, * seems sufficient to avoid this problem. */ if (intel_has_quirk(display, QUIRK_INCREASE_T12_DELAY)) { - vbt->power_cycle = max_t(u16, vbt->power_cycle, 1300 * 10); + vbt->power_cycle = max_t(u16, vbt->power_cycle, msecs_to_pps_units(1300)); drm_dbg_kms(display->drm, "Increasing T12 panel delay as per the quirk to %d\n", vbt->power_cycle); @@ -1510,13 +1516,12 @@ static void pps_init_delays_spec(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, lockdep_assert_held(&display->pps.mutex); - /* Upper limits from eDP 1.3 spec. Note that we use the clunky units of - * our hw here, which are all in 100usec. */ - spec->power_up = (10 + 200) * 10; /* T1+T3 */ - spec->backlight_on = 50 * 10; /* no limit for T8, use T7 instead */ - spec->backlight_off = 50 * 10; /* no limit for T9, make it symmetric with T8 */ - spec->power_down = 500 * 10; /* T10 */ - spec->power_cycle = (10 + 500) * 10; /* T11+T12 */ + /* Upper limits from eDP 1.3 spec */ + spec->power_up = msecs_to_pps_units(10 + 200); /* T1+T3 */ + spec->backlight_on = msecs_to_pps_units(50); /* no limit for T8, use T7 instead */ + spec->backlight_off = msecs_to_pps_units(50); /* no limit for T9, make it symmetric with T8 */ + spec->power_down = msecs_to_pps_units(500); /* T10 */ + spec->power_cycle = msecs_to_pps_units(10 + 500); /* T11+T12 */ intel_pps_dump_state(intel_dp, "spec", spec); } @@ -1582,7 +1587,7 @@ static void pps_init_delays(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) * HW has only a 100msec granularity for power_cycle so round it up * accordingly. */ - final->power_cycle = roundup(final->power_cycle, 100 * 10); + final->power_cycle = roundup(final->power_cycle, msecs_to_pps_units(100)); } static void pps_init_registers(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, bool force_disable_vdd)